W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-perf@w3.org > May 2012

RE: [ResourceTiming] initiator types

From: Jatinder Mann <jmann@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 00:15:12 +0000
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "public-web-perf@w3.org" <public-web-perf@w3.org>
CC: James Simonsen <simonjam@google.com>
Message-ID: <AE5FFD9402CD4F4785E812F2C9929D6504EFA564@SN2PRD0310MB383.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
The goal of the initiatorType attribute was so developers can easily categorize and sort their timing information by the type of initiators. Developers generally know their own markup and the element tags they've used, so I don't think the goal is necessarily to iterate through exactly every type of element used. 

Using the element's localName and the JavaScript object's constructor will give the same sort of information to developers and eliminates the need for an "other" bucket. However, I wonder if this will make the initiatorType so noisy that its less useful as a filtering/sorting technique. For example, all the various SVG elements would be reported individually as opposed to a general "svg" bucket. Also, iframe and frame would be reported individually, as opposed to a general "subdocument" bucket.  A pre-defined list of initiator types may make the goal of sorting the data easier.

I'm not opposed to making a change here. I agree that we should make the feature simple enough that a developer doesn't need to refer the spec every time they are using the feature. However, I think we should make sure the feature is still achieves its goals.

I will add this topic to our conference call agenda and get back to this thread.

Thanks,
Jatinder
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2012 00:16:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:32 UTC